View Full Version : City Planning Question



leprechaun
12-02-2010, 09:19 PM
Hello everybody, in the past couple years I have become very interested in city planning, so much so that I would like to get a master's degree in this field. I would like to see OKC become a REAL urban city, and even though this city is making progress, I am wary of the so-called "good ole boy" system currently place that allows suburban development to continue. I realize that sprawl continues to be an inevitability in most cities, but developments like the approved Sandridge plaza are inexcusable in the only remotely urban area in OKC's 600+ square miles. For an urban minded person to be a planner in OKC, do you think the "good ole boy" system is still too established for somebody to make a difference? I would like to be a planner for this city, but I don't want to waste my time if I will be forced to make decisions that go against my urban minded vision. Any information would be appreciated, thanks.

Kerry
12-03-2010, 12:53 PM
If you want to get something done, stay out of the public sector side of urban planning. Work for a private sector development company, or start your own development company (start small and work your way up).

Here is an example of private sector company that you could work for.
http://www.urscorp.com/

BG918
12-03-2010, 02:19 PM
Hello everybody, in the past couple years I have become very interested in city planning, so much so that I would like to get a master's degree in this field. I would like to see OKC become a REAL urban city, and even though this city is making progress, I am wary of the so-called "good ole boy" system currently place that allows suburban development to continue. I realize that sprawl continues to be an inevitability in most cities, but developments like the approved Sandridge plaza are inexcusable in the only remotely urban area in OKC's 600+ square miles. For an urban minded person to be a planner in OKC, do you think the "good ole boy" system is still too established for somebody to make a difference? I would like to be a planner for this city, but I don't want to waste my time if I will be forced to make decisions that go against my urban minded vision. Any information would be appreciated, thanks.

You might try working for the city to gain experience and if that doesn't work out go into the private sector. Are you getting your master's at OU?

okclee
12-03-2010, 02:54 PM
Do what everyone else does, be an Okctalk.com City Planner.

It doesn't pay that much, the hours are good and flexible, plus the benefit of anonymity.

Popsy
12-03-2010, 04:16 PM
I have been under the impression that a lot of the most active posters in the forum were either failed city planners or future failed city planners. I feel certain that the reality of city planning and the perception of those seeking a degree in the field can be a huge wake up call.

leprechaun
12-03-2010, 08:02 PM
Yeah there seem to be a lot of city planner types on this site. Honestly, for the most part the posters on okctalk have a much better vision for this city than those in charge, but unfortunately we are in the minority.

Kerry- Thanks for the link, I will look into that. I think the private sector might be the only option in terms of accomplishing anything lol.

BG918- Yes I'm planning on getting my master's at OU, and I'm currently a junior undergrad.

Kerry
12-03-2010, 09:31 PM
Here is another one for you leprechaun

http://www.pbsj.com/Pages/default.aspx

dwellsokc
12-04-2010, 04:21 AM
Leprechaun,
It is not the "good old boy" system that allows suburban development to continue... it's logic, reason, and economics. The development of Sandridge plaza is not inexcusable... it’s another viewpoint, and politics (there are many more components to urban design than street-wall). A person that wants to make a difference via the Planning Department will have to be ridiculously patient, and be able to manipulate economics and politics. After you get your masters, count on working in the planning department for at least ten years before anyone begins to acknowledge your credibility.

Believe it or not, there are already many, good, "urban minded" planners working in OKC. If you really want to change things, become a journalist!

flintysooner
12-04-2010, 09:02 AM
Hello everybody, in the past couple years I have become very interested in city planning, so much so that I would like to get a master's degree in this field. I would like to see OKC become a REAL urban city, and even though this city is making progress, I am wary of the so-called "good ole boy" system currently place that allows suburban development to continue. I realize that sprawl continues to be an inevitability in most cities, but developments like the approved Sandridge plaza are inexcusable in the only remotely urban area in OKC's 600+ square miles. For an urban minded person to be a planner in OKC, do you think the "good ole boy" system is still too established for somebody to make a difference? I would like to be a planner for this city, but I don't want to waste my time if I will be forced to make decisions that go against my urban minded vision. Any information would be appreciated, thanks. I've had several interactions with planners and I've become very interested in planning itself.

My interest is along the lines of how development and architecture in a place can contribute to a sense of community and enjoyable, practical use by those who live there.

At the same time I came rather abruptly to the realization that there were several other areas of consideration that demanded my full attention. Those include finance, government, politics, engineering, architecture, and construction to only name a few. Any one of these is sufficiently complex to require more time than any of us have.

I've learned that planners cannot provide a vision although they sometimes try. I've learned that planners who do not understand the local culture are handicapped. And I've learned that there is a lot of enthusiasm for ignoring local culture.

On the government side the planning function is also multidisciplinary. There is the application of codes and regulations which is not nearly as straight forward as first appears. There is a lot of engineering and economics and finance. And there are also definite political aspects which may well be the most difficult for most people.

Those who have been of greatest service in my opinion are those who have had the broadest and longest experience. Where others talk about theory it is very helpful to have someone who actually has been involved in something that either worked or failed.

It is amazingly easy to look at a project through a narrow filter and it is wonderfully helpful for someone to bring an entirely different perspective to the problem.

These are my personal observations from my own experiences with planners and may nor may not be useful to you.

Either way best of wishes in your future endeavors.

Spartan
12-04-2010, 12:29 PM
Hello everybody, in the past couple years I have become very interested in city planning, so much so that I would like to get a master's degree in this field. I would like to see OKC become a REAL urban city, and even though this city is making progress, I am wary of the so-called "good ole boy" system currently place that allows suburban development to continue. I realize that sprawl continues to be an inevitability in most cities, but developments like the approved Sandridge plaza are inexcusable in the only remotely urban area in OKC's 600+ square miles. For an urban minded person to be a planner in OKC, do you think the "good ole boy" system is still too established for somebody to make a difference? I would like to be a planner for this city, but I don't want to waste my time if I will be forced to make decisions that go against my urban minded vision. Any information would be appreciated, thanks.

Well keep in mind that SandRidge Commons received a negative recommendation from the planning department. The recommendation didn't say "Fail this, it's a bad project," it just said "This project is not in compliance with the letter nor the intent of the new downtown ordinances" in so many words. The DDRC ignored the city staff recommendation, and it was arguably them and not city staff that was pressured by anything/anyone.

City planning doesn't pay, unless perhaps you work for a private planning firm. Arguably you'd be making more of an impact on real cities there than with a city planning department, because anyone can determine if a project adheres to city code, whereas private planning firms actually affect stuff that will be built. I've often thought in a perfect utopia the city could provide architectural services to developers, therefor giving the community a greater opportunity to influence development, but alas I don't see that happening.

Just ignore the negative posters on here. Much the case with Popsy, when those people start talking about reality they're mostly trying to avoid facing reality. The irony is that they own that arguing point for whatever reason, because nobody in OKC gives a flying $#@# about sustainability, problems with sprawl, and any of those crappy realities. We have a saying in this city that Steve Lackmeyer is bringing back with the devoted help of city staff and lame developers: "Better than crappy makes us happy."

bluedogok
12-04-2010, 06:15 PM
Here is another one for you leprechaun

http://www.pbsj.com/Pages/default.aspx
A friend of mine works in the office down here here, after reading the story about Atkins buying PBSJ I told him "sorry, been there, have the coffee mug" after their failed ownership stint with Benham.

leprechaun
12-04-2010, 10:38 PM
Hey everybody thanks for the responses. I just want to let you know that I don't mean to sound preachy. I realize that there are probably plenty of urban minded planners in this city, and that there are tons of factors that go into decisions among planners and city leaders that I don't realize. Lots of positive things are happening. I was very pleased with the recent announcements of the Aloft hotel and the condos across the street in Deep Deuce, which is the kind of development that I had hoped for in that area. There are some great neighborhoods that have continued to develop, like the Plaza District and The Paseo. I am very impressed with the modern houses in the "SOSA" area, and Midtown in general has tons of potential.

I can't help but feel frustrated though with developments like the The Hill and the SandRidge plaza. They would have been great in any other area of the city. I have rather had SandRidge lie to us than have their reasoning for tearing down historic buildings to improve their sightlines. Are you kidding me? SandRidge acted shocked and threw a fit when the city attempted to enforce current guidelines, and they still got their way because of all the money they are bringing to the community. This city shouldn't have to whore itself out, especially when we already have great corporate citizens like Devon. If we are willing to bend over backwards like this for SandRidge, Devon probably could have torn down half of downtown if they wanted to (exaggeration).

I realize that I my vision may be too idealistic and naive for the real world, considering that I lack any first hand knowledge when it comes to city planning. It just seems like the average citizen is incredibly apathetic, and due to lack of standards developers get away with whatever they want. OKC has the potential to be a unique city if people want it to be, or we could continue to not give a %&*$ and look like Dallas does now in 50 years. When I hear people say "we will never be a New York City or Chicago", they're right. It is people with this attitude that will stop OKC from reaching its potential, and I'm sick of it. I guess its an inferiority complex.

Seriously, if people like the suburban lifestyle that's fine. There's nothing wrong with wanting your own yard. Considering that people get married and have kids at a younger age than most states, it is no surprise that the suburban lifestyle is dominant here. In my opinion, people don't even consider other options of living when the majority of the population has grown up in suburbia. People have been programmed to think that they should have SUVs and a McMansion as part of the American Dream. A mixed-use environment isn't for everybody, but if OKC at least had this option, I'm sure there would be plenty of people willing to give it a try. Young people should not have to move out of state to have this option available. My 20 year old sister just moved to Minneapolis for this reason. James Howard Kunstler says it best about suburban sprawl: "the greatest misallocation of resources the world has ever known." Sorry for the rant, just my perspective.

Spartan- Quote is spot-on

Spartan
12-05-2010, 12:42 AM
Well don't feel like you need to be involved from the inside. I mean, you'll never gain Popsy and Del Camino's respect as an outsider, but who cares about that. You can make a difference from the outside. We all pick our fights carefully and I like to think we were definitely heard and considered a force to be reckoned with over the summer when we kept throwing monkey wrenches in SandRidge's carte blanche application.

If you're looking to maintain your vision and outlook on the world, I'd recommend being on your own. It's not just city planners that get to have a say about urbanism. Actually I'd argue that they're entitled to the smallest say out of anyone. They're not even the department that effects urbanism the most in OKC--the city engineers in the public works department actually design roads, including streetscapes and pedestrian accommodations. I'd say something negative about the city engineers but I feel like I've already exceeded my maximum allowance for negativity today..

Kerry
12-06-2010, 06:26 AM
Open comment to leprechaun and all the other urbanist in OKC. If you want OKC to become more urban it is time to start walking the walk. If you live in Norman, Moore, Edmond, or rural/suburban OKC you need to move downtown, Mesta Park, Heritage Hills, or some other urban core area. We need more pioneers. Things will be harder at first but you will lay the ground work for future development. It is time for less "build it and they will come" and more "come and they will build it". I let slip in another thread that we were looking to return to Norman (after being gone 16 years) and that I prefered to live in Heritage Hills/Mesta Park. We fight about that constantly but in the long run I think it will worth it (assuming I win the argument). This is a call to arms. Urban OKC doens't need more people that back them in spirit, they need people that back them in person. Step up.

On a side note, I was checking out realtor.com for houses in the areas I mentioned - there are some serious deals out there. I wish we were in a position to move right now.

Spartan
12-06-2010, 03:32 PM
Woah, ouch. What about Urban Norman?... the state's only truly functional and healthy urban inner city.

Kerry
12-06-2010, 07:12 PM
Woah, ouch. What about Urban Norman?... the state's only truly functional and healthy urban inner city.

Some people like living in something already established, others like doing the establishing. Some people stand on the shoulders of giants, others are the giants. OKC needs more of both.

BG918
12-06-2010, 07:55 PM
Woah, ouch. What about Urban Norman?... the state's only truly functional and healthy urban inner city.

Agree, there is a big difference between Norman and the other OKC suburbs. I would say Norman and OKC both need more young people and families in their inner neighborhoods. And it should not just be limited to downtown but all inner city areas.

leprechaun
12-06-2010, 08:15 PM
I live in Norman and agree that it has the most functional urban district in the state. As good as it is, I would like to live in the inner north side of OKC once I graduate it, especially while I can still afford it as i suspect that prices will go up dramatically in that area. It's too bad there aren't more urban pioneers out there, especially OKC. I applaud the people that were willing to invest in areas like The Paseo and The Plaza District. Urban pioneers are the one's who create organic and desirable communities such as these. We are lucky to have Wayne Coyne living in the same area where he grew up, and not out in Deer Creek. It is people like him that care about the community as a WHOLE. I have heard that he attends functions and meetings in the Plaza area. It seems that one problem with people here is that they take tremendous pride in their particular subdivisions to make sure that they are safe and aesthetically pleasing, but don't really care about the rest of the city outside of their subdivision, which they leave up to the city, who also doesn't seem to care. This is just a generalization, as i know there are exceptions. Midtown might have the most potential, considering that it already has great character, but there remains many undeveloped lots. This is a district that I would also like to see grow organically. We still need to have guidelines and enforce them, but we should not encourage mega developers in that area, which could potentially destroy the identity of that area.

Spartan
12-06-2010, 08:54 PM
I would argue that there aren't enough people taking pride in the appearance of their own property. If you compare community aesthetics in OKC to elsewhere like Omaha or Des Moines, or Tulsa, you see a disparity. It's a vague thing but extremely noticeable.

Also I can't wait for prices in OKC to rise. Higher property values = better development. Lower property values = more shoddy development that people have been getting away with. I'm no longer denying those economics. YES, cheaper property values and cost of living SHOULD make doing cool projects cheaper and easier, but someone explain why it has never worked that way.

The answer: downtown has to be able to compete economically, not just socially or culturally. It can't when the city is still in sprawl-mode.

leprechaun
12-06-2010, 09:54 PM
I haven't seen enough of Tulsa to compare Spartan, but your probably right. One factor that is working against is the enormous square footage of our city. It's too bad that the city will probably never consider reducing our boundaries to the urban areas. I guess the original reasoning was about the water supply, but I have no idea if this is still relevant or how complicated the process would be. The reality of vertical development making more economic sense for the developer than sprawl might not happen even in my lifetime.

I am afraid the city will forever be in sprawl mode until it doesn't make any economic sense. The environmental and overall economic impact of sprawl is devastating. If the government had everybody's best interests in mind and we were living in my perfect world, suburban development would be taxed in proportion to its REAL costs. A developer willing to go vertical and build vertically should be given a huge tax break. I don't know if this system is in place, but maybe give tax breaks to developers that are willing to build with better quality. It's only going to benefit the city in the long term, not to mention the environment. This is unrealistic because people don't see this as a value to them personally, even though it will benefit the community. When in incorporating police and fire and utilities and other public uses that are stretched out due to sprawl, the cost might even out. This is just speculation, as I'm not familiar enough with economics and policy to know if this would work.

ljbab728
12-06-2010, 11:35 PM
IOne factor that is working against is the enormous square footage of our city. It's too bad that the city will probably never consider reducing our boundaries to the urban areas. I guess the original reasoning was about the water supply, but I have no idea if this is still relevant or how complicated the process would be. The reality of vertical development making more economic sense for the developer than sprawl might not happen even in my lifetime.

I have had this discussion many times with others here about the OKC city limits. I remember very well when all of the expansion was taking place and I never heard anything about water supply being relevant. The expansion was to prevent OKC from being hemmed in by the suburbs such as what happened to Dallas and Tulsa. If OKC had not annexed all of their land we would be in the exact same situation. Development in the suburbs would still be happening but OKC would get no tax benefits. And I've heard the arguments about letting the suburbs foot the bills for development but the tax benefits outway that by far.

Spartan
12-07-2010, 12:56 AM
Well, let's look at Dallas' population growth. Let's say that suburban sprawl did not begin in Dallas until the 1940s, and did not end until Dallas was built-out in the 1980s. I don't know if that's actually when Dallas was built-out, but for the most part, I don't know of any newer neighborhoods on Dallas' far fringe than neighborhoods that appear to be built in the 80s or 70s before you get to Richardson. Most of Richardson is 60s/70s though so it could be sooner, or it could be later. But let's go with the 80s. So in recap: 1940s --- 1980s = Dallas' sprawl period.

1860 678

1870 3,000 342.5%
1880 10,358 245.3%
1890 38,067 267.5%
1900 42,639 12.0%
1910 92,104 116.0%
1920 158,976 72.6%
1930 260,475 63.8%
1940 294,734 13.2%
1950 434,462 47.4%
1960 679,684 56.4%
1970 844,401 24.2%
1980 904,078 7.1%
1990 1,006,877 11.4%
2000 1,188,580 18.0%
Est. 2010 1,300,000 9.4%

So from 1860 to 1940 Dallas averaged growth from 100+% to 60% yearly. And this was very urban growth. Then during the sprawl period Dallas averaged growth from 7% to 56% depending on the economic indicators. When Dallas lost "room to grow" in the 80s that growth did take a hit, even though it went from 7% to 11% it did not keep up with the Metroplex average growth which rebounded big-time in the 90s. Then shot up to 18% which is absolutely remarkable for a U.S. inner city, and around 10% for the last decade, which still beats OKC this decade. The level of construction of new condos and lofts all over Dallas proper has been absolutely amazing and there have been more urban units built than new residential units built in the entire OKC metro. And as leprechaun said, the required public infrastructure is so much more efficient--Dallas spends an incredible amount of money trying to build $1 trillion/mile freeways like the new LBJ and the DART which also has an amazing per mile cost (though nowhere near the freeways) and all this other Metroplex infrastructure that is just mind boggling. The urban development in Dallas requires a tiny fraction of the transit infrastructure that comes with suburban development.

Kerry
12-07-2010, 06:25 AM
I am afraid the city will forever be in sprawl mode until it doesn't make any economic sense.

Sprawl doesn't make economic sense now. It only happens because the developer and home buyer only have to pay a portion of the cost of the new development and the taxpayers at large have to pick up the rest of the bill.

Here is a demonstration. Below is the area of land based on the radius of growth from the center and the amount of new land encompassed by the growth. All measurement are in miles and sq miles where appropriate.

Radius Area Change
1 3.14
2 12.57 9.42
3 28.27 15.71
4 50.27 21.99
5 78.54 28.27
6 113.10 34.56
7 153.94 40.84
8 201.06 47.12
9 254.47 53.41
10 314.16 59.69
11 380.13 65.97
12 452.39 72.26
13 530.93 78.54
14 615.75 84.82
15 706.86 91.11
16 804.25 97.39
17 907.92 103.67
18 1017.88 109.96
19 1134.11 116.24
20 1256.64 122.52
21 1385.44 128.81
22 1520.53 135.09
23 1661.90 141.37
24 1809.56 147.65
25 1963.50 153.94


When the city goes from a 10 mile radius to an 11 mile because of sprawl it is the equivalent of rebuilding the inner 4.5 miles of the City. Then we get more sprawl and 10 years later we go from 11 miles to 12 miles out (no big deal - just another mile right). Well, that is the equivalent of rebuilding the inner 5 miles - but there aren't more people in the inner five miles to help pay for that becaus all the new people are moving to the fringe and at lower densities so a 1 mile road serves fewer people than the same 1 mile road in the urban core and we need more 1 mile roads as the circle gets bigger. So in essence, the benefit goes down while at the same time we are needing more (i.e. diminishing returns - or 'pay more get less'). I don't like paying more and getting less.

Alas, 10 years later there is more sprawl and we go from 11 miles to 12 miles - which adds another 75 sq miles to the mix. That is the equivalent of rebuilding the inner 5 mile circle again with even more dimishing returns. It can't go on forever, because each 1 mile increase in sprawl cost more to build and support than the previous mile. The whole concept of sprawl is based on dimishing returns and that is a sure looser for everyone involved.

LakeEffect
12-07-2010, 07:36 AM
Soapbox time.

OKC Talk is constantly filled with talk of being urbanist and wanting to be involved in Planning efforts and making Oklahoma City better. The Planning Department is in the process of writing a completely new comprehensive plan for OKC, (planokc (http://www.planokc.org)), and yet attendance at our events is a paltry 8 to 16 people per plan element. This is despite haveing up to 170 people signed up to participate in each element. I urge people to take the time to participate. The comprehensive plan is what guides the growth of OKC; it will shape the look of OKC for the next 30 years.

Leprechaun, I urge you to look out of state for planning education. OU is good, but, in my honest opinion, it's small faculty size and limited experience don't provide the educational opportunity that other schools might have.

Kerry
12-07-2010, 08:52 AM
Soapbox time.

OKC Talk is constantly filled with talk of being urbanist and wanting to be involved in Planning efforts and making Oklahoma City better. The Planning Department is in the process of writing a completely new comprehensive plan for OKC, (planokc (http://www.planokc.org)), and yet attendance at our events is a paltry 8 to 16 people per plan element. This is despite haveing up to 170 people signed up to participate in each element. I urge people to take the time to participate. The comprehensive plan is what guides the growth of OKC; it will shape the look of OKC for the next 30 years.

Leprechaun, I urge you to look out of state for planning education. OU is good, but, in my honest opinion, it's small faculty size and limited experience don't provide the educational opportunity that other schools might have.

Two points - The Comprehensive Plan doesn't do anything for 30 years. I don't know about in Oklahoma, but here in Florida cities are required to re-write their 30 year plans every 5 years. As for faculty and school rankings - I have learned one thing in this world - the school you go to is far over-rated, as your education doesn't begin until you start working at your first job. I see just as many people from Big 10 schools working for people that graduated from SE Georgia State University at Brunswick as I do working for people from Ivy League schools. I would rather hire a grad from Valdosta State than from Yale. Most of the people I work with got their degrees from India and Pakistan while PAC-10 grads are getting laid off by the truck load.

I suggest reading up on the coming education bubble.

LakeEffect
12-07-2010, 09:26 AM
The last Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1977. It was updated in 1989 and 2000, but not much was re-written or added. Things were actually removed (environmental conservation definitions for one). Oklahoma state law does not require 5 year updates.

Kerry
12-07-2010, 12:18 PM
The last Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1977. It was updated in 1989 and 2000, but not much was re-written or added. Things were actually removed (environmental conservation definitions for one). Oklahoma state law does not require 5 year updates.

Thanks for the clarrification cafeboeuf. In that case you are correct, if you are even remotely interested in city planning you should be attending these meetings if you can.

bdhumphreys
12-07-2010, 03:50 PM
Leprechaun -

In addition to planOKC, I would encourage you to get involved with ULI Oklahoma. The Urban Land Institute is a great organization with significant membership here locally. A great way to meet and work with planners, as well as, developers, architects, land use attorneys, city officials and more.

If you are interested, send me an email (blair.d.humphreys@gmail.com) and I can provide you some more detailed information on upcoming events.

Best,

Blair

Spartan
12-07-2010, 04:12 PM
Soapbox time.

OKC Talk is constantly filled with talk of being urbanist and wanting to be involved in Planning efforts and making Oklahoma City better. The Planning Department is in the process of writing a completely new comprehensive plan for OKC, (planokc (http://www.planokc.org)), and yet attendance at our events is a paltry 8 to 16 people per plan element. This is despite haveing up to 170 people signed up to participate in each element. I urge people to take the time to participate. The comprehensive plan is what guides the growth of OKC; it will shape the look of OKC for the next 30 years.

By the way, before you have expressly told us not to come to certain sessions unless we were an official "stakeholder" representing a HOA. Otherwise a lot of us would have already gotten involved in it by now. A large percentage of us actually attended the SandRidge hearings and went to the Let's Talk Transit meetings. If there's a meeting you want us at, let us know when and where! We'll bring out the blogosphere coverage and drag some new adherents with us.

leprechaun
12-07-2010, 08:17 PM
I don't think going to school out of state is realistic at this point in my life. OU is so affordable that it would be a shame to not take advantage of in state tuition. If my OU education doesn't do me any good, I suppose I could look elsewhere. I don't mind starting at the bottom and working my way up.

Kerry- I agree with what you said about sprawl not currently making economic sense. I should have said: I am afraid the city will forever be in sprawl mode until it doesn't make any economic sense *to developers*

bdhumphreys: That would be great, I'd appreciate that. I would like to get my foot in the door any way that I can. I'll send you an email soon.

Kerry
12-07-2010, 08:32 PM
Kerry- I agree with what you said about sprawl not currently making economic sense. I should have said: I am afraid the city will forever be in sprawl mode until it doesn't make any economic sense *to developers*.

Thank you. There are three way to go about that, you can make sprawl un-economical, make in-fill more economical, or do both. I prefer making the in-fill more economical. I always find it better to attract flies with sugar, than vinager. Portland went with the "make sprawl un-economical" and while it worked for the most part, it resulted in very high housing prices across the board. I would prefer to encourage in-fill AND keep prices low across the board. This can be done by freezing property taxes on the new developments, expiditing city review, tax credits, and reduced permit fees. Here in Florida permit fees alone can add $10,000 or more to the price of an average home.

Spartan
12-07-2010, 09:12 PM
How urban is Florida? (That's a rhetorical question, but I don't know if it's be making your point or arguing against it..who knows I guess)

Kerry
12-07-2010, 09:21 PM
How urban is Florida? (That's a rhetorical question, but I don't know if it's be making your point or arguing against it..who knows I guess)

Sprawl in Florida is beyond out of control. For example, last summer the City of Jacksonville cut back on mowing grass in medians, at intersections, and in city parks. They saved $760,000 just in mowing expenses. The people of Jax were shocked to learn how much it cost just to mow all the public grass around Jacksonville. The price of sprawl is becoming known.

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-06-16/story/jacksonville-cuts-mowing-budget-now-it%E2%80%99s-starting-show


Mowing funds cut in Jacksonville budget; now it’s starting to show
Jacksonville officials sought to save $760,000 in the next few months.

The grass is creeping higher at some Jacksonville intersections. Some city parks are looking a little shaggy.

And that’s before the summer rains and growing season really kick in, officials said.

Jacksonville scaled back its mowing this summer to try to save $760,000 over the next few months, and it’s starting to show in some parts of town.

“It’s getting a little bit unruly,” Emily Simpson said Tuesday afternoon in Memorial Park.

Simpson walks Shih Tzus Arwin and Luther through the park regularly and says the aesthetics of the area are part of what draw people to live and hang out in Riverside.

But clusters of weeds in the grassy middle of the park have now stretched knee-high.

Spartan
12-07-2010, 10:51 PM
Tulsa, which is denser than both OKC or Jacksonville, only just started mowing parks again this year after taking a two-year mowing break. It costs Tulsa $910,000/year.

http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=12333101

Kerry
12-08-2010, 05:59 AM
Tulsa, which is denser than both OKC or Jacksonville, only just started mowing parks again this year after taking a two-year mowing break. It costs Tulsa $910,000/year.

http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=12333101

$910,000/ year (Tulsa) vs $760,000 for 3 months (Jax). If you extrapolate that out Jax spends north of $3 million/year mowing grass. 3X more than Tulsa. The problems will be real bad for St Johns County to our south. They built miles and miles and miles of new street, expressways, and four lanes roads all over the place to handle all the new subdivsions being built, but most of them never got past 25% sold before the housing bust hit. So now they have to maintain all these roads and pay off the debt used to building them with a small fraction of the number of people they thought would be paying property taxes.

BTW - Florida tried the "make sprawl un-economical" and it failed miserable. When we lived in Tampa the counties and towns in the Tampa Metro Area imposed impact fees on developers which added more than $10,000 to the price of new homes, so developers built their new homes even further out to avoid the impact fees. The state had to construct the Suncoast Parkway just to handle all the people traveling more than 40 miles back to Tampa for work each day.

LakeEffect
12-08-2010, 07:34 AM
By the way, before you have expressly told us not to come to certain sessions unless we were an official "stakeholder" representing a HOA. Otherwise a lot of us would have already gotten involved in it by now. A large percentage of us actually attended the SandRidge hearings and went to the Let's Talk Transit meetings. If there's a meeting you want us at, let us know when and where! We'll bring out the blogosphere coverage and drag some new adherents with us.

And this is the rest of what I said:

"Stakeholder groups will form soon and we'll begin having more detailed meetings. If you want to be on a group, go to www.okc.gov/planokc and send a note via the Feedback Form. I'll let OKCTalk know when the Meeting-in-a-Box concept is ready for groups to pick up and use. There will be plenty of other involvement opportunities as the process continues.

The kick-off meeting presentation and slideshow are available on the website.

Paul"

Spartan
12-08-2010, 11:49 AM
Alrighty, thanks..I'll see if I can try and drum up some support for such an idea.

LakeEffect
12-08-2010, 12:03 PM
Alrighty, thanks..I'll see if I can try and drum up some support for such an idea.

Thanks!

leprechaun
12-08-2010, 10:12 PM
Thank you. There are three way to go about that, you can make sprawl un-economical, make in-fill more economical, or do both. I prefer making the in-fill more economical. I always find it better to attract flies with sugar, than vinager. Portland went with the "make sprawl un-economical" and while it worked for the most part, it resulted in very high housing prices across the board. I would prefer to encourage in-fill AND keep prices low across the board. This can be done by freezing property taxes on the new developments, expiditing city review, tax credits, and reduced permit fees. Here in Florida permit fees alone can add $10,000 or more to the price of an average home.

Interesting. I always thought the urban growth boundary was a good idea, but reducing housing prices would be ideal. The high housing prices is the downside, but I would rather have a high priced urban environment than low priced sprawl. Do you think Portland would be as urban if it went the "make in-fill more economical" route? Are there any examples of cities that have tried this? It seems like a no-brainer.

Kerry
12-09-2010, 06:17 AM
Interesting. I always thought the urban growth boundary was a good idea, but reducing housing prices would be ideal. The high housing prices is the downside, but I would rather have a high priced urban environment than low priced sprawl. Do you think Portland would be as urban if it went the "make in-fill more economical" route? Are there any examples of cities that have tried this? It seems like a no-brainer.

I can't really think of any off the top of my head and I suspect that is because the people mosty opposed to urban sprawl come from the 'green' side of the political spectrum and they tend to favor government that influences individual choices through higher taxes, fees, and regulations. I am the New 'New Urbanist'; I oppose urban sprawl because of the exposure it creates for taxpayers, who for the most part are unaware of how much sprawl cost (in real dollars) in the long run. Sprawl is a monumental waste of money and resources. However, if someone wants to waste their own money that is up to them, but when that waste or obligation is transfered to taxpayers I have a problem with it.


Interesting. I always thought the urban growth boundary was a good idea, but reducing housing prices would be ideal. The high housing prices is the downside, but I would rather have a high priced urban environment than low priced sprawl. Do you think Portland would be as urban if it went the "make in-fill more economical" route? Are there any examples of cities that have tried this? It seems like a no-brainer.

Not only would it be cheaper to live in Portland, it would be even more urban. Think about this. Portland attracts a lot of people who like the urban lifestyle, but there is a trade off with the high prices, which in turn prices a lot of people out of the market. What if price wasn't as much of an issue though? What if it were more economical to live in an urban environment? People would flock to it.

Well, it IS more economical to live and urban environment - it is just the barrier to entry that is higher. If the barrier to entry (the cost of your home or rent) was lower more people would do it. A high density city is also a lot cheaper to run and maintain so the saving to the taxpayers would be even higher. They get to keep more and spend less. Who doesn't like that combination?

Now granted, some people don't want to walk to the bar, the store, the movies, to dinner. They prefer to drive everywhere and maintain a large yard. That's cool. But when it comes to installing all the sewar lines, power lines, roads, sidewalks, and providing bus service, police, fire, ambulance, schools, school buses, etc... to people that want to live on the suburban fringe, I have a hard time seeing that as cost effective. This is why I favor OKC drastically reducing the size of its city limits.

Double Edge
12-09-2010, 06:20 AM
I can't really think of any off the top of my head and I suspect that is because the people mosty opposed to urban sprawl come from the 'green' side of the political spectrum and they tend to favor government that influences individual choices through higher taxes, fees, and regulations. I am the New 'New Urbanist'; I oppose urban sprawl because of the exposure it creates for taxpayers, who for the most part are unaware of how much sprawl cost (in real dollars) in the long run. Sprawl is a monumental waste of money and resources. However, if someone wants to waste their own money that is up to them, but when that waste or obligation is transfered to taxpayers I have a problem with it.

You can subscribe whatever misplaced understandings of those who started the conversation that you want. We welcome all latecomers to the party.

Double Edge
12-09-2010, 06:33 AM
Interesting. I always thought the urban growth boundary was a good idea, but reducing housing prices would be ideal. The high housing prices is the downside, but I would rather have a high priced urban environment than low priced sprawl. Do you think Portland would be as urban if it went the "make in-fill more economical" route? Are there any examples of cities that have tried this? It seems like a no-brainer.

There's no better place to start than right here. http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/report00/

If you get the report there are some details of various cities that have worked on the issue as well as where to get tools to prepare impact statements and other ground work for your local community.

flintysooner
12-09-2010, 06:38 AM
I am unclear on the argument that sprawl is more expensive for the taxpayer.

If the utilities and streets leading to the development are absent the developer usually has to extend them to the site. Then all of the utilities and streets on site are built by the developer. Detention usually has to be provided on site or some fee paid in lieu to use city provided detention.

In the case of the recently popular gated communities the cost of maintaining streets is borne by the community and not the city. This also applies to the maintenance of any features such as ponds and trails and so on. Even if the streets and utilities are dedicated to the city there is no cost to the city for the construction of these items. And they either have to have been built to city standards or upgraded to city standards.

The connection, usage, and other per unit fees are set by the city and would typically be the same regardless of location in the city. These fees are supposed to be sufficient to pay for system wide maintenance and use. I'm unclear about how eventual replacement of infrastructure is contemplated by city planners if at all but generally that should be an issue regardless of location.

Even in cases where the city has to undertake necessary work later the cost is often deferred by a special assessment to the property owners.

On the revenue side the city gains additional user fees again regardless of location but certainly better that the city gain the revenue than some other city in the same area. There is a property tax increase as well although that is not as beneficial to the city as it is other entities. Then there is the potential of increased sales tax revenue that occurs because of more population.

If the area being developed is so far out that no utilities are available then detention still has to occur on site and wells and septic systems are at least controlled by city standards. Even then though the cost is borne by the developer or homeowner.

While I am not arguing for sprawl by any means I just don't follow the increased cost to taxpayers argument.

Double Edge
12-09-2010, 06:40 AM
Whatever you do, don't take the time to read that report I just linked. I don't think they even get into the cost of fighting wars in the middle east so we can continue to fuel our commuter cars.

flintysooner
12-09-2010, 06:51 AM
Whatever you do, don't take the time to read that report I just linked. I don't think they even get into the cost of fighting wars in the middle east so we can continue to fuel our commuter cars.I read it just now as your post wasn't there when I began composing. I've not done anything outside this area. I found it interesting that some places subsidize utilities. If it is available here I don't know how to take advantage of it obviously. It would surely make it cheaper to develop something if one didn't have to pay for utilities.

A lot of the arguments aren't terribly persuasive to me for this area at least but there are a few good points, too.

Added:
I found the conclusions page to be most enlightening, especially the discussion about smart growth.

Double Edge
12-09-2010, 06:54 AM
IMO it behoves us to do the calculations of what effects our policies have WRT sprawl and adjust accordingly, especially if we are in the process of making new longterm plans.

flintysooner
12-09-2010, 06:58 AM
IMO it behoves us to do the calculations of what effects our policies have WRT sprawl and adjust accordingly, especially if we are in the process of making new longterm plans.Absolutely agree with you. Reading about some of the other areas mentioned in the Sierra Club report is really interesting.

Kerry
12-09-2010, 07:03 AM
Flintysooner - let me explain it this way. I live in a gated community here in Florida. Before our subdivision was built there was nothing out here, not even city streets. The entire area used to be planted pine farms. The streets in our subdivision belong to our homeowners assoication. What doesn't belong to us is the city street that leads to our subdivision that connects us to the rest of the world. That road has to be maintained and cared for. That includes repaving when necessary, 2 new stop lights, street lights that are on every night, sidewalks, the mowing of the median and shoulders, etc. Plus we required police and fire to travel further, and our local utility company is city ownered so the cost of installing the utilites has to be paid for. Now I have to hook up to electricty no matter where I live. I could have hooked up to an existing portion of the system in urbanized Jacksonville or hook up to a whole new portion that had to be built just for us. Then I sit around and complain about high my electric bill is, only to find out it is so high because of all the debt servicing JEA had to encur because of all the new potions of the system they had to build.

I won't get into gasoline/fighting wars for oil because we use oil for lots of stuff and if we didn't burn the gasoline created during the fractional distilation process what we do with it? Just store it forever? Back in the day they used to pour gasoline in rivers because there was no use for it.

flintysooner
12-09-2010, 01:37 PM
... What doesn't belong to us is the city street that leads to our subdivision that connects us to the rest of the world. That road has to be maintained and cared for. That includes repaving when necessary, 2 new stop lights, street lights that are on every night, sidewalks, the mowing of the median and shoulders, etc. Plus we required police and fire to travel further, and our local utility company is city ownered so the cost of installing the utilites has to be paid for. Now I have to hook up to electricty no matter where I live. I could have hooked up to an existing portion of the system in urbanized Jacksonville or hook up to a whole new portion that had to be built just for us. Then I sit around and complain about high my electric bill is, only to find out it is so high because of all the debt servicing JEA had to encur because of all the new potions of the system they had to build.

I won't get into gasoline/fighting wars for oil because we use oil for lots of stuff and if we didn't burn the gasoline created during the fractional distilation process what we do with it? Just store it forever? Back in the day they used to pour gasoline in rivers because there was no use for it.Well here in this area if I were developing land that had no road then I would have to build that road and if the road were already in place I might have to upgrade the road to city standards and then dedicate it to the city. That would include signalization, landscaping, and so on. There might be an exception to this if something had been previously promised or worked out a deal of some kind with the city.

The public safety support issue is more complex but it is possible that it might require more capacity but not necessarily. It can be mitigated even then and it should also be noted that having dense concentrations of people in high rise towers can also be quite expensive for public safety concerns.

Here in the development I know about I would have to extend the utilities. On utilizing existing infrastructure with greater numbers of users it is also quite possible to need expanded services. So it is not so easily determined.

I absolutely agree about the cost of transportation being a reasonable factor to consider in calculating total living cost. But again it is not so easily done. We are much more service oriented now and I doubt very seriously that will be changing. So while I think it is a factor it seems to me it is a factor for individual consideration rather than something that can be assumed in central planning.

I do appreciate the explanation of the points of view regarding this issue.

Kerry
12-09-2010, 02:15 PM
I assure you our builder did not pay for the four lane road that runs past our subdivision.

Spartan
12-09-2010, 03:28 PM
The permit fees mostly pay for the review process with the city's qualified planning professionals. It also goes toward a nice drop in the bucket for infrastructure costs..I think it is supposed to come close to paying for sewage utilities but that is it.